The defendant's disposition of non-permission to display outdoor advertising materials to the plaintiff on July 15, 2020 shall be revoked.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company whose business purpose is outdoor advertising agency business.

B. On November 28, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for deliberation on the installation of the following advertising materials on the rooftop of the building at a height of 44.4 meters above the ground B (hereinafter “instant building”) which is a general commercial area (hereinafter “first application”). The type, quantity, size, advertisement contents of advertisements, etc. x 1-type electric sign board 20.48m x 10.496m (electronic sign board) x 20.61m x 12.75m (frequency) x 13.76m x 12.75m (m) x 12.75m (mpex) x 11.0m (mpex) commercial advertisements and public relations activities for public interest.

C. On December 5, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the deliberation by the Committee on Deliberation on External Advertisement regarding the first application for deliberation.

(d)

On December 31, 2018, the Plaintiff applied for deliberation on the advertisement by changing the size of the advertisement among the details of the first application for deliberation as follows (hereinafter “the second application for deliberation”). Standard 19.207m x 11m (electronic display board) x 11m (m) x 11m (m) x 13.95m x 11m (m) x 11m (m) x 11m (m) x 19.05m x 11m x 11m x 11m (m) .

E. On January 9, 2019, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff the second request for deliberation without supplementation of the risk of large-scale accidents and concerns over high-pollution of light pollution due to the transmission of an urban expressway video advertisement, which was rejected as a result of the deliberation by the committee for deliberation on the first outdoor advertisement.

F. On January 14, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for deliberation by the committee for deliberation on outdoor advertisements by supplementing the deliberation books, etc. to the Defendant (hereinafter “third application”). On January 24, 2019, the Defendant sent a reply that the application for deliberation on January 24, 2019, which was rejected as a result of the deliberation by the committee for deliberation on the first outdoor advertisements, was not subject to reexamination on the risk of large-scale accidents caused by the transmission of advertisement of urban highway images, and concerns over the occurrence of light pollution.

H. On February 14, 2019, the Plaintiff changed the size of the advertising material to the Defendant as follows.